----- Original Message ----
> From: Rainer Jung <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Sent: Friday, January 2, 2009 11:43:44 AM
> Subject: Re: Configuration change for c...@httpd?
>
> On 02.01.2009 15:57, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > ----- Original Message ----
> >> From: Joe Schaefer
> >> To: [email protected]
> >> Sent: Friday, January 2, 2009 9:42:20 AM
> >> Subject: Re: Configuration change for c...@httpd?
> >> ----- Original Message ----
> >>> From: "William A. Rowe, Jr."
> >>> To: [email protected]
> >>> Sent: Friday, January 2, 2009 9:37:58 AM
> >>> Subject: Re: Configuration change for c...@httpd?
> >>>
> >>> Joe Schaefer wrote:
> >>>> ----- Original Message ----
> >>>>
> >>>>> From: "William A. Rowe, Jr."
> >>>>> To: [email protected]
> >>>>> Sent: Friday, January 2, 2009 9:12:28 AM
> >>>>> Subject: Re: Configuration change for c...@httpd?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> >>>>>> To: undisclosed-recipients:;
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> to headeradd for c...@httpd, overriding the normal To:
> >>>>>> [email protected]. That should prevent Reply-All from picking up
> >>>>>> the commit list, since there won't be anything in the To: or CC:
> >>>>>> fields for it to use.
> >>>>> Last I checked, thunderbird reply-all does cc undisclosed-recipients.
> >>>>> Very irritating given how we configured the apmail reply-to-all's.
> >>>> Are you sure? AIUI the list is now configured to behave in the
> >>>> same way that ezmlm deals with moderation requests.
> >>> Correction, the exact header used for the apr moderation queue is;
> >>>
> >>> To: Recipient list not shown: ;
> >>>
> >>> so not the same thing as "undisclosed-recipients:"
> >>
> >> Updated.
> >
> > FWIW, RFC-2822 says the text shouldn't matter, as both headers constitute
> > empty groups (albeit with different names).
>
> I tried with Thunderbird 3.0b1. It copies
>
> Recipient list not shown: ;
>
> as well as
>
> undisclosed-recipients:;
>
> to CC when replying to all. When actually sending the message a popup
> occurs, that informs the user, that the address needs to be corrected
> because it is invalid. You can't send before changing or removing the
> address.
So, is that better or worse than getting a bounce message? I'll point out
that Yahoo! used to have a similar problem, but have since resolved it. I
wonder what gmail does now?
